民主黨的硅谷討伐戰(zhàn)

Travel 10 miles beyond America’s capital and you would be hard pressed to find much anger about Silicon Valley. Inside Washington’s beltway, however, Big Tech’s monopoly power is rarely far from people’s minds.

出了美國首都10英里，你很難感受到人們對(duì)硅谷有多少憤怒之情。然而，在華盛頓環(huán)路以內(nèi)，大科技公司的壟斷力量極少被人們淡忘。

In the space of a few months, the likes of Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder, and Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, have gone from heroes to pariahs. The Democratic party’s new big idea is to break up the Silicon Valley groups — or to impose far tougher regulations. The problem is that most voters do not seem to share this passion. For populism to work, it should be popular.

在幾個(gè)月時(shí)間里，F(xiàn)acebook創(chuàng)始人馬克•扎克伯克(Mark Zuckerberg)和谷歌(Google)首席執(zhí)行官埃里克•施密特(Eric Schmidt)等人從英雄淪為賤民。民主黨的新的大想法是拆分硅谷企業(yè)——或者施行嚴(yán)厲得多的監(jiān)管。問題在于，大多數(shù)選民似乎并不抱有同樣的熱情。要想搞民粹主義，首先得打動(dòng)人心。

No doubt America’s voters should be more worried about the threat of Big Tech. But liberals should beware of talking among themselves. Groupthink shields people from counter-narratives. Recall the “demography is destiny” belief that Democrats were assured of winning the White House. Or that women would vote overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton. The idea that Russia — enabled by Facebook, Twitter and others — tipped last year’s election to Donald Trump has become an article of faith. What if voters aren’t listening? Or worse, that they think Democrats are lying?

毫無疑問，美國選民理應(yīng)更擔(dān)心大科技公司的威脅。但自由派人士應(yīng)該提防自娛自樂。群體思維會(huì)阻礙人們提出反論?；叵胍幌掠嘘P(guān)民主黨人一定能贏得白宮的“人口結(jié)構(gòu)決定一切論”。或者應(yīng)該會(huì)有壓倒性多數(shù)的女性把票投給希拉里•克林頓(Hillary Clinton)的設(shè)想。關(guān)于俄羅斯依靠Facebook、Twitter和其他渠道、讓去年的美國大選朝著有利于唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)的方向傾斜的說法，已經(jīng)變成了一種信念。但如果選民沒有聽進(jìn)去呢?或者更糟糕，如果他們認(rèn)為民主黨在撒謊呢?

That hits the nerve of the problem. A generation ago America declared a war on drugs. Tens of billions of dollars and dozens of broken cartels later, most US law enforcement veterans admit defeat. The problem lay in the demand for drugs, rather than its supply. The same applies to fake news. People seek it out. Suppose Facebook could debar any foreign money from making political ads, and Twitter weeded out every Russian bot and troll. Would it alter the tone and content of America’s politics? I very much doubt it. Homegrown entities such as Inforwars, Newsmax and Breitbart would still do their worst. As Mark Twain is supposed to have said, a lie travels halfway around the world before truth has put its boots on.

這觸及到了問題的要害。一代人以前，美國對(duì)毒品宣戰(zhàn)。在花費(fèi)數(shù)百億美元，打掉數(shù)十個(gè)毒品集團(tuán)之后，大多數(shù)美國資深執(zhí)法人員承認(rèn)他們失敗了。問題在于對(duì)毒品的需求，而不在于其供應(yīng)。同樣的道理也適用于假新聞。人們會(huì)尋覓自己愛看的新聞。假設(shè)Facebook能夠禁止境外資金被用來做政治廣告，Twitter能夠封殺每一個(gè)俄羅斯自動(dòng)程序和惡意造謠者。這能夠改變美國政治的調(diào)子和內(nèi)容嗎?我很懷疑。Inforwars、Newsmax和Breitbart等本土實(shí)體依然會(huì)努力作惡。就像馬克•吐溫(Mark Twain)據(jù)稱說過的，謊言已經(jīng)傳到世界的另一邊，而真相才剛剛穿上靴子。

High demand for fake news mirrors the collapse in trust for US institutions. Most newspapers support tough action against Silicon Valley. Software, as they say, is eating the world. Google and Facebook are swallowing the revenues of professional media. Journalists are thus part of the same antitrust bubble that Democrats inhabit. Beware of basking in media consensus. Mrs Clinton was endorsed by virtually every newspaper in the country — conservative and liberal. Hard though it is for a journalist to admit, this may actually have helped Mr Trump. It may do so still. Mr Trump profits as much as he loses from the moral outrage he so richly deserves.

對(duì)假新聞的旺盛需求反映出人們對(duì)美國機(jī)構(gòu)的信任崩塌。大多數(shù)報(bào)紙支持對(duì)硅谷采取嚴(yán)厲行動(dòng)。它們說，軟件正在吞噬這個(gè)世界。谷歌和Facebook正在吞噬專業(yè)媒體的收入。因此，新聞從業(yè)人員成了民主黨人所處的反壟斷泡沫的一部分。要提防沉迷于媒體共識(shí)。當(dāng)初希拉里得到了美國幾乎所有報(bào)紙的支持——無論是保守派還是自由派報(bào)紙。盡管讓一個(gè)新聞從業(yè)人員承認(rèn)這一點(diǎn)很難，但這實(shí)際上可能幫了特朗普。同樣的事情可能還在發(fā)生。特朗普引發(fā)的道德義憤使他失去了很多，也得到了很多。

As my colleague Rana Foroohar has argued, there are strong economic grounds to step up regulation of Big Tech. Likewise, there is mounting evidence to show that the Silicon Valley groups are abusing their monopoly leverage. Again, however, this should not be confused with good politics. It is a tall order to expect voters to feel ripped off by a social media page or search engine that costs nothing. Most people simply shrug. It is hard to see the economics of personal data ownership catching on. The amount of time it would take to chase up pennies on the dollar is unlikely to ignite the popular imagination.

就如我的同事拉娜•福魯哈爾(Rana Foroohar)主張的，有充足的經(jīng)濟(jì)理由來加強(qiáng)對(duì)大科技公司的監(jiān)管。同樣，越來越多的證據(jù)表明硅谷的科技集團(tuán)正濫用它們的壟斷支配地位。然而，這不應(yīng)該與高明的政治策略混為一談。很難期望選民覺得自己被免費(fèi)的社交媒體頁面或者搜索引擎占了便宜。大多數(shù)人只會(huì)聳聳肩。難以看出個(gè)人數(shù)據(jù)所有權(quán)的經(jīng)濟(jì)意義贏得廣泛共鳴。在小錢上做文章不太可能激發(fā)民眾的想象力。

Elizabeth Warren, the 2020 presidential hopeful, has called on Democrats to emulate the trustbusting Teddy Roosevelt. But Facebook is not Standard Oil. Nor is social media a Wall Street bank. Ms Warren was right to point out that America’s bankers got off very lightly from the 2008 crisis. Virtually no senior banker was held criminally liable for defrauding middle America. Ms Warren’s critique also had popular appeal. Left or right, most Americans were outraged by the alacrity with which Wall Street bonuses returned in the wake of the largest bailout in history. Now she has switched her aim to Silicon Valley.

有望角逐2020年大選的伊麗莎白•沃倫(Elizabeth Warren)呼吁民主黨人效仿分拆壟斷企業(yè)的西奧多•羅斯福(Theodore Roosevelt)。但Facebook不是當(dāng)年的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)石油公司(Standard Oil)。社交媒體也不是華爾街銀行。沃倫曾正確地指出，美國的銀行家們輕易逃脫了2008年危機(jī)的責(zé)任。幾乎沒有高級(jí)銀行家因?yàn)樵p騙美國中產(chǎn)階層而被追究刑事責(zé)任。沃倫的批評(píng)也有民眾感召力。無論是左派還是右派，大多數(shù)美國人對(duì)于華爾街在史上最大規(guī)模紓困之后若無其事地恢復(fù)了獎(jiǎng)金感到憤怒?，F(xiàn)在沃倫把槍口轉(zhuǎn)向了硅谷。

Until recently, liberal America and Big Tech were allies. Democrats acted as if they believed Google’s “Don’t be evil” motto. That was naive. Now they are falling out of love. Companies such as Google may earn their break up. But it should not be because they have subverted democracy. Blame for that must be widely shared. Trust in politics nosedived long before Facebook reached dominance, or Twitter was launched. They have become enablers of fake news. But consumers remain the chief source of demand.

直到不久以前，美國的自由派陣營和大科技公司還是盟友。民主黨人貌似相信谷歌的“不作惡”座右銘。那有點(diǎn)幼稚?，F(xiàn)在雙方的戀情宣告終結(jié)。谷歌等公司可能嘗到“分手”的苦澀。但這不應(yīng)該是因?yàn)樗鼈儾鹆嗣裰髦贫鹊膲δ_。那方面的指責(zé)必須由很多機(jī)構(gòu)分擔(dān)。對(duì)政治的信任崩塌在Facebook取得主宰地位，或者Twitter上線很久之前就發(fā)生了。社交媒體便利了假消息的傳播。但消費(fèi)者仍是需求的主要來源。

Until Democrats rebuild trust in their brand, good policy will be hard to sell. They should also be wary of fellow travellers. Others calling for the break-up of the tech groups include Steve Bannon, Mr Trump’s alter ego, and Richard Spencer, founder of the alt-right. With allies like these, who needs foes?

在民主黨人重建對(duì)他們品牌的信任之前，好的政策將依然難以兜售。他們應(yīng)該對(duì)同行者抱有戒心。呼吁拆分科技集團(tuán)的人還包括特朗普的知己史蒂夫•班農(nóng)(Steve Bannon)，以及“另類右翼”(alt-right)創(chuàng)始人理查德•斯潘塞(Richard Spencer)。有這樣的盟友，誰還需要敵人?